Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: weazel on January 28, 2002, 10:43:45 PM
-
America's dirty Afghan secret: it's a war over oil
A book written by two French intelligence analysts is certain to embarrass President George W Bush and his administration. The book, Bin Laden, La Verite Interdite (Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth), released recently, claims that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over Bush's obstruction of an investigation into Taliban's terrorist activities. The authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, claim that Bush resorted to this obstruction under the influence of the United States' oil companies.
Bush stymied the intelligence agency's investigations on terrorism, even as it bargained with the Taliban on handing over of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid. "The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it," O'Neill reportedly told the authors. According to the Brisard and Dasquie, the main objective of the US government in Afghanistan prior to Black Tuesday was aimed at consolidating the Taliban regime, in order to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.
Prior to September 11, the US government had an extremely benevolent understanding of the Taliban regime. The Taliban was perceived "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. This would have secured for the US another huge captive and alternate oil resource centre. "The oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that…this rationale of energy security changed into a military one," the authors claim.
"At one moment during the negotiations, US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'," Brisard said in an interview in Paris. On Saturday, representatives of the Northern Alliance (NA), former King Zahir Shah's confidantes, and possibly, non-Taliban Pashtun leaders, will meet in Berlin under the aegis of the US-led coalition to discuss a broad-based government in Afghanistan. It might be a coincidence that the US and Taliban diplomatic representatives met in Berlin early this year.
According to the book, the Bush administration began a series of negotiations with the Taliban early in 2001. Washington and Islamabad were also venues for some of the meetings. The authors claim that before the September 11 attacks, Christina Rocca, in charge of Asian Affairs in the US State Department, met Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef in Islamabad on August 2, 2001. Interestingly, Rocca is a veteran of US involvement in Afghanistan. She was previously in charge of contacts with Islamist guerrilla groups at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), where she oversaw the delivery of Stinger missiles to Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation forces in the 1980s.
Brisard and Dasquie also reveal that the Taliban were not really ultra-orthodox in their diplomatic approach, because they actually hired an American public relations' expert for an image-making campaign in the US. It is, of course, not known whether the Pakistanis helped the Taliban secure the services of a professional image-maker. What is, however, revealed in the book is that Laila Helms, a public relations professional, who also doubles up as an authority on the way the US intelligence agencies work, was employed by the Taliban. Her task was to get the US recognise the Taliban regime. Prior to September 11, only three countries - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE - recognised the Taliban regime. Helms' familiarity with the ways of US intelligence organisations comes through her association with Richard Helms, who is her uncle a former director of the CIA and former US ambassador to Tehran.
Helms is described as the Mata Hari of US-Taliban negotiations. The authors claim that she brought Sayed Rahmatullah Hashimi, an advisor to Mullah Omar, to Washington for five days in March 2001 - after the Taliban had destroyed the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan. Hashimi met the Directorate of Central Intelligence at the CIA, and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department.
The authors have an impressive record in intelligence analysis, and this perhaps is the reason why the book is being talked about in hushed tones in Paris and other European capitals. Till the late 1990s, Brisard was the director of economic analysis and strategy for Vivendi, a French company. He also worked for French secret services (DST), and wrote for them in 1997 a report on the now famous Al Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden. Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy.
On November 19, The Irish Times said in a report, "O'Neill investigated the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, a US base in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam in 1998, and the USS Cole last year."
"Jean-Charles Brisard, who wrote a report on bin Laden's finances for the French intelligence agency DST, and is co-author of Hidden Truth, met O'Neill several times last summer. He complained bitterly that the US State Department - and behind it the oil lobby who make up President Bush's entourage - blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt."
"The US ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine, forbade O'Neill and his team of so- called Rambos (as the Yemeni authorities called them) from entering Yemen. In August 2001, O'Neill resigned in frustration, and took up a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center. He died in the September 11 attack."
O'Neill, an Irish-American, reportedly told Brisard that all the answers, and everything needed to dismantle bin Laden's Al Qaeda, can be found in Saudi Arabia. Fearing that the Saudi royal family would be offended, US diplomats quietly buried the leads developed by O'Neill. So much so that even when the FBI wanted to talk to the suspects accused of bombing a US military installation in Dhahran in June 1996, in which 19 US servicemen were killed, the US State Department refused to make much noise about it. The Saudi officials, however, interrogated the suspects, declared them guilty and executed them. O'Neill actually went to Saudi with his team, but according to the report in The Irish Times quoting Brisard, "they were reduced to the role of forensic scientists, collecting material evidence on the bomb site".
The US' hedging on investigating Taliban's terrorist activities and its links with bin Laden were premised on the belief that a quid pro quo deal could be arranged with Taliban. The deal, apparently, was oil for diplomatic and international recognition. One important reason for Operation Enduring Freedom could well be securing American oil interests in the region. It would not be surprising if the pipeline project is put back on track soon. Even a cursory look at the oil potential of the Central Asian region is enough to understand the American interest in this region. The Caspian Sea basin encompassing countries like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are believed to possess some 200 billion barrels of oil, which is about one-third the amount found in the Persian Gulf area.
The greater Gulf area, encompassing Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other adjacent countries, has been a centre of international oil politics. First, the British fought to gain control over the area's petroleum wealth, followed by the French. But in the post-World War II scenario, the US emerged as the dominant power in the region, because its energy security and economic prosperity depended on the uninterrupted oil supply from this region. In March 1945, President Franklin D Roosevelt and King Addel Aziz ibn Saud signed a secret agreement, which forged a long-lasting strategic partnership. Though the details of the agreement remains secret till date, the deal ensured privileged US access to Saudi oil, in return for US protection of the royal family from internal and external threats.
However, the US dependence on Middle Eastern oil is not a secret. The US national energy policy, released by the Bush administration earlier this year, stated, "The Gulf will be a primary focus of US international energy policy." According to Michael T Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, and author of Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, by launching Operation Enduring Freedom, the US want to achieve two sets of objectives: "First, to capture and punish those responsible for the September 11 attacks, and to prevent further acts of terrorism; and two, to consolidate US power in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea area, and to ensure continued flow of oil. And while the second set may get far less public attention than the first, this does not mean that is any less important."
With many senior members of the Bush administration linked to major oil business interests, it more than a matter of coincidence that the US is involved in a war in Afghanistan. Vice-President Dick Cheney was, until the end of last year, president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for the oil industry. US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was, between 1991 and 2000, manager for Chevron; secretaries of commerce and energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant.
There is, therefore, more to the War against terrorism than the Bush administration is willing to admit.
"Flame On Kato"
-
"Jean-Charles Brisard, who wrote a report on bin Laden's finances for the French intelligence agency DST, and is co-author of Hidden Truth, met O'Neill several times last summer. He complained bitterly that the US State Department - and behind it the oil lobby who make up President Bush's entourage - blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt."
"The US ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine, forbade O'Neill and his team of so- called Rambos (as the Yemeni authorities called them) from entering Yemen. In August 2001, O'Neill resigned in frustration, and took up a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center. He died in the September 11 attack."
:eek:
just a coincidence?
-
Heh, I need to finish reading before I post...
The US' hedging on investigating Taliban's terrorist activities and its links with bin Laden were premised on the belief that a quid pro quo deal could be arranged with Taliban. The deal, apparently, was oil for diplomatic and international recognition. One important reason for Operation Enduring Freedom could well be securing American oil interests in the region. It would not be surprising if the pipeline project is put back on track soon. Even a cursory look at the oil potential of the Central Asian region is enough to understand the American interest in this region. The Caspian Sea basin encompassing countries like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are believed to possess some 200 billion barrels of oil, which is about one-third the amount found in the Persian Gulf area.
Bush, Afghanistan, oil, Enron, something bigger is going on for sure. Its turning out to be like a bad plot in a B movie.
-
Anything written by a bunch of French tards gets a direct deposit in the trash can as far as I'm concerned. Does anyone really think the "French" are freinds of the U.S.?? Thats funny...no really!
-
Instead of the issues? :rolleyes:
A bigger question is...if this book has any truth to it how do you feel about being used as a pawn for the petroleum industry?
The US military shouldn't be used to fill corporate bank accounts.
-
Specified and approximations , November 18, 2001
Comment of: A reader of Paris
Like all the books having for source the secret service, this one swarms with new indications, very precise, but impossible to check. What is awkward, on the other hand, they are glaring errors
BTW. Considering where this came from...................http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2001/nov/21/ca112101america.htm
-
A pawn, I'm a pawn, oh dear me!
That there were talks of some kind at some level with a nation we don't recognize is hardly unusual or a cause for great conspiratorial concern. That an issue of natural resources may have come up at some point in those possible discussions is hardly from left field.
That someone would somehow tie the manipulation of Bin Laden as the needed excuse to do what they wanted (were going to?) do anyway is hardly suprising, and will probably sell a few books. I am suprised they didn't pin the bombing as a fake done by the CIA (maybe in the book they do), it would sell more copies. They need to somehow tie Clinton's bombing into the conspiracy too, maybe blackmailed him into doing it with one of the prior scandels? Maybe they're holding off on that for the sequel.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Instead of the issues? :rolleyes:
A bigger question is...if this book has any truth to it how do you feel about being used as a pawn for the petroleum industry?
The US military shouldn't be used to fill corporate bank accounts.
Ok, apart from the FACT that the frenchies have been doing everything in thier power to undermine pretty much everything "U.S." for decades...AND that the author's are for lack of a better description "intimate" with French Intelligence services, I suppose this book (article) could be worth some merit. However, I shall of course expand.
The idea of a Central Asian pipeline is as old as oil itself, and it's not going to happen, any clod with an 8th grade education should be able to figure this out fairly easily if he were to apply himself.
The guilt of Osama bin Lama has hardly been in doubt...for years. Proving this guilt may have been burdensome for the authorities but :D, the talibonkers and al-quacko's themselves negated the need to provide this proof...or perhaps gave the world all the circumstancial evidence they needed, that all depends upon how you look at it.
Who in thier right mind thinks oil is NOT a major foriegn policy issue of the U.S.? It is, however, if you bother to check on oil reserves available to the U.S. on it's own soil (granted development would be expensive) you might not be so convinced on the percieved U.S. dependance on foriegn oil.
Goals (oh so bad ones) as stated in the article:
1. Destroy the Taliban and Al-Queda.
Ok, how exactly what should be done about these low-lifes?
Send'em aid and further thier sadistic goals? Hell, why not just send them a few little nukes as a measure of good will?
2. Counter and destroy the threat to Central Asian countries from Islamic extremists supported by bin Laden and Taliban.
uhhm...ok? Golly thats terrible. Heck I won't even bother commenting on this one. If one cannot figure this one out you may well need to think about sticking a diaper on your head and grabbing an AK-47
3. Negate the Taliban and Al Qaeda objective of replacing the existing Central Asian governments with militant Islamic regimes.
HOLY CRAP!!....ALL THIS FOR BLACK-GOLD?? Give me a break.
More unsupported, uncorroborated, unreliable, vague, decietful leftist anti-Bush misinformation designed solely to bring discredit on the U.S. presidency...all because you don't like him. And you're using the FRENCH to do it lolol.
-
As a general rule book about intelligence cannot be trust.
Neither Tumor.
-
A bigger question is...if this book has any truth to it how do you feel about being used as a pawn for the petroleum industry?
- Weasel
Sensational at first glance... but not very interesting - to me - it lacks credibility.
Energy is a strategic concern of our government. Our government is going to be assertive in protecting those interests.
The book is not going to unravel the spook stuff for us.
-
weazel is a well known USA hating leftist idiot, move on folks..............
-
who cares?
I want cheap gas for my cars, don't you?
Seems they picked the wrong carpet and I'm sure the new guy in town will let us build all the oil pipe lines we want ... win, win for us and them.
Go Bush!
-
Assuming this was all true, it is nothing new for a country to be involved in clandestine attempts to extract resources from other countries as cheaply as possible. To believe America doesn't do the same is naive beyond comprehension.
My question is, Weazel, "Where was this writer during the last administration?" I can accept the possibility of truth in this now. Can you accept the last administration had its hand shoved just as deeply down the cookie jar? Do you believe the next one won't?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
. Can you accept the last administration had its hand shoved just as deeply down the cookie jar?
That's impossible, Clinton's cookie jar was much deeper than Bush's, beside the fact that Clinton took that cookie jar with him when he left office :D
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Anything written by a bunch of French tards gets a direct deposit in the trash can as far as I'm concerned. Does anyone really think the "French" are freinds of the U.S.??
That depends what you mean by U.S. It is quite possible that someone revealing truth may be a "friend" of some people in the US but enemy of the others.
As for this particular book, some of it may well be plausible. What does it matter? We do have a democratic representative government and free market economy, both of which reflect our interests. So while we agree to cooperate with and finance evil regimes so that we could continue driving our gas-guzzlers, what does the book say that we would care about?
I would not expect the freenchies to be any less trustworthy then the american journalists (if only because it would be hard to be any less trustworthy) and at least they may have a different perspective then US Borg-like media.
miko
-
My question is, Weazel, "Where was this writer during the last administration?" I can accept the possibility of truth in this now. Can you accept the last administration had its hand shoved just as deeply down the cookie jar? Do you believe the next one won't?
I'll respond to your question Kieran since your one of the few bush supporters I respect.
I've said several times on this UBB that Clinton was a crook, I only supported his right to privacy, and yes...based on the current and previous 3 administrations I believe that it's only going to get worse.
Udie: skip....Clinton...skip...Clinton...skip...Clinton
Clinton isn't president anymore, get over it.
-
This guy didn't write all of that simply to say "Oil concerns dictate Middle East policies"... did he?
That wins a big fat "DUH" in my book.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
This guy didn't write all of that simply to say "Oil concerns dictate Middle East policies"... did he?
That wins a big fat "DUH" in my book.
AKDejaVu
Thats a pretty simplistic view of the allegations the book makes isn't it?
The republican party should change its symbol from an elephant to an ostrich with its head buried in the sand......or in its ass.
Groinhurtz, does caring about the direction our government has taken automatically make me a "well known USA hating leftist idiot"?
Just because I don't like the rat in the white house doesn't mean I don't care about my country.
Seems to me the shoe fits those who don't care. :rolleyes:
-
Well, in deja's defense it's a pretty simplistic storyline.
This story is nothing new, by the way. It's been floating around being quoted from different, um, I'll call them niche, internet sites ever since the first bomb dropped.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Well, in deja's defense it's a pretty simplistic storyline.
This story is nothing new, by the way. It's been floating around being quoted from different, um, I'll call them niche, internet sites ever since the first bomb dropped.
Fatty, this has been going on longer than 9/11, Cooleys book was published in 2000.
In a book entitled Unholy Wars, ABC news correspondent John K Cooley reveals United States and multi-national oil companies intentions to establish pipelines to route the oil and natural gas of Central Asia and the Caspian Basin to the West. To this end the aims of the generals of the Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) and their American counterparts, the CIA, converged. They saw in the Taliban the means by which they could achieve their objectives.
In 1993, Pakistan and Turkmenistan had signed an agreement to jointly develop their energy resources and build a pipeline between the two countries. UNOCAL, based in California, signed a protocol with the Turkmen government to explore the feasibility of building this pipeline. The one-year study cost $10 million for a huge energy project worth $18 billion, to transport Turkmen oil and gas by pipeline to the Indian Ocean. This trade and energy would run through Pakistan, America's ally, rather than through Iran, her adversary ever since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. This will also bypass Iranian ambitions to channel Turkmen energy.
A further objective of both the Taliban and Pakistan is the recovery of natural gas from northern Afghanistan's Shibergan province, pumped northward to Russia through Uzbekistan. Afghan estimates of the resources in the Shibergan gas fields run to 1,100 billion cubic meters. Export of the gas continued throughout the 1979-89 war, despite periodic sabotage orchestrated by the CIA and ISI.
Bin Laden, La Verite Interdite' (Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth). corroborates Cooley's findings.
Something stinks..... and its the rat in the white house. ;)
-
Well my young idealistic simmer pals....welcome to the real world.
The President of the United States is soley responsible for protecting this countries citizens and it's interests, no matter what party they originate from.
Bush will do what he feels will best serve the United States and it's interests....which is exactly what he should do. If the means by which he accomplishes this are covert or overt, simply do not matter.
We did not elect him to maintain the status quo. Someone barked about oil company profits...figure it out. We need oil to defend ourselves and for our country to survive. Would some of you feel better to be castrated and suck the hind tits of countries who advocate our destruction?
He is serving his country in a way that most of you do not even understand.
-
Thats a pretty simplistic view of the allegations the book makes isn't it?
No... its VERY simplistic.. and accurate.
Why should the U.S. have a presence in the Middle East? All I need to see is one reason. To maintain peace? Good Will? What?
AKDejaVu
-
The authors are playing fast and loose with the facts, just an example:
US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was, between 1991 and 2000, manager for Chevron
Condoleeza Rice was the Provost of Stanford University during that time period.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
No... its VERY simplistic.. and accurate.
Why should the U.S. have a presence in the Middle East? All I need to see is one reason. To maintain peace? Good Will? What?
AKDejaVu
Man you shrub supporters are adept at the old *side step shuffle*, let me make it clearer for you:
Bush stymied the intelligence agency's investigations on terrorism, even as it bargained with the Taliban on handing over of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid. "The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it," O'Neill reportedly told the authors.
Granted theres no way to question the former head of the FBI since he died in the WTC attack, so our only option to find the truth now rests on a government that is thumbing its nose at a law passed by Congress to thwart presidential abuse of power.
It sounds to me like you support negotiating with terrorists for the petroleum industries gain...at the expense of the folks in our armed forces.
Like I said something stinks.
Since when was he elected rude?
IIRC he was handed the presidency by the supreme court.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The authors are playing fast and loose with the facts, just an example:
Condoleeza Rice was the Provost of Stanford University during that time period.
From her home page midnight Target:
Condoleezza Rice is the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. She previously served as a Hoover senior fellow from 1991 until 1993, when she was appointed provost of Stanford University. Rice held the position of provost for six years, during which time she served as the chief academic and budget officer of the university, before stepping down on July 1, 1999. She is on a one-year leave of absence from the university.
Rice first came to Stanford in 1981 as a fellow in the arms control and disarmament program. She is a tenured professor in the university's political science department and was a Hoover Institution national fellow from 1985 until 1986.
Following her initial Hoover Institution affiliation, Rice went to Washington, D.C. to work on nuclear strategic planning at the Joint Chiefs of Staff as part of a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship. She came back to Stanford when the fellowship ended.
Rice returned to Washington in 1989 when she was director of Soviet and East European affairs with the National Security Council. She also was appointed special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Soviet affairs at the National Security Council under President George Bush. In those roles, she helped bring democratic reforms to Poland, and played a vital role in crafting many of the Bush administration's policies with the former Soviet Union.
Rice's professional activities since returning to Stanford have not been limited to the university. She cofounded the Center for a New Generation, an after-school academy in East Palo Alto, California, and is a corporate board member for Chevron, the Hewlett Foundation, and Charles Schwab. In addition, Rice is a member of J.P. Morgan's international advisory council.
Rice is a Council of Foreign Relations member, a National Endowment for the Humanities trustee, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
She has written numerous articles and several books on international relations and foreign affairs, including Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft, with Philip Zelikow (Harvard University Press, 1995).
Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a bachelor's degree in political science (cum laude). She earned a master's degree at the University of Notre Dame and a doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in political science.
-
Weazel, respond please; was Clinton, or any other past president, any less involved in covert operations involving our foreign interests, in particular where oil is concerned?
You lose big here. You may not like Bush, and you may be right to hate him, but this isn't the smoking gun you seek.
-
Why thank you for clearing that up Weazel - So what exactly is accurate about calling her a "manager" of Chevron?
Like I said, fast and loose.
-
Tahgut do you see now why I think of you as a liberal and weazel as a leftist?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Weazel, respond please; was Clinton, or any other past president, any less involved in covert operations involving our foreign interests, in particular where oil is concerned?
You lose big here. You may not like Bush, and you may be right to hate him, but this isn't the smoking gun you seek.
I'm sure they were Kieren, my squeak here is USING the US Armed Forces for financial gain for himself and his cronies, as far as the "smoking gun" comment goes I think time will prove me right on my assesment of shrubs intentions and his lack of ethics and moral character.
It appears to me he's just making sure one of daddys 1993 projects sees fruition.
I haven't lost anything, except respect for the clowns in Washington....and that means dems and reps both.
Our servicemen aren't supposed to be used to further a corporations greed.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Why thank you for clearing that up Weazel - So what exactly is accurate about calling her a "manager" of Chevron?
Like I said, fast and loose.
Gee, what exactly do corporate board members do? Why confuse the issue with semantics.
Groinhurtz, when you finally shed your balkan ignorance I'll take into consideration your opinion of me, until then when I want one from you I'll pull the ring on your back.
leftist..liberal...leftist..l iberal...
-
If you were to go back over the last 100 or so years of presidential history you might find some things revealed to you. Do you know how the Panama Canal was built? ;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Condoleeza Rice was the Provost of Stanford University during that time period.
No, you misunderstand, she was managing a service station on the weekend night shift.
-Sikboy
-
Weazel, they must really know their stuff if tying the war in afganistan to a number of fairly normal foriegn policy manuevers is a story that has been told since far before 9/11.
Truly gifted to have so accurately forseen all that would come.
Why do people so easily dismiss what you see as the smoking gun? Well, if you want to stretch the leaps of logic as our friends have done here, you could note that no region of the world is without some sort of petroleum reserves. Also, there is likely no region of the world completely devoid of contacts from the United States, both economic and diplomatic (heaven forbid, sometimes they even overlap!). Hence it is quite obvious that our entire international communication and diplomatic system is setup for nothing more than getting a few CEOs wealthy. This is the logic used in the all informative damning book.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
If you were to go back over the last 100 or so years of presidential history you might find some things revealed to you. Do you know how the Panama Canal was built? ;)
I remember reading about TR and his "Big Stick". :D
The only bearing the past has on this is whether or not you learn from it....or make the same mistakes. ;)
Hence it is quite obvious that our entire internation communication and diplomatic system is setup for nothing more than getting a few CEOs wealthy. This is the logic used in the all informative damning book.
So...your comfortable with our armed forces being the potatos of corporations and a corrupt president?
Some of you guys truly are amazing.
-
Weazel, in case it was not clear enough, that was a mockery of your conspiracy theories.
It's quite common when proliferating such theories to rely on true facts but rediculous corrolations between them. Because A and B are both true, that does not mean they are in any way related.
It's quite obvious the US govt is hiding information about aliens from us, why else would they prevent people from getting into area 51?
-
What should we do? Impeach Bush? Replace him with... whom? Do you believe the next guy won't work covertly in American business interests? What are you wanting to accomplish exactly?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want our government involved in wrongdoing, but what are you suggesting should be done?
-
Originally posted by weazel
So...your comfortable with our armed forces being the potatos of corporations and a corrupt president?
Some of you guys truly are amazing.
So, it would seem you've swallowed the cited article hook, line, and sinker?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
What should we do? Impeach Bush? Replace him with... whom? Do you believe the next guy won't work covertly in American business interests? What are you wanting to accomplish exactly?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want our government involved in wrongdoing, but what are you suggesting should be done?
Theres not a whole lot the average joe can do Kieren, I suggest emailing or writing your congressman/senator to voice your concerns about Executive Order 13233 as a start.
Yeah Fatty, thats the ticket...attack, mock, or belittle anyone who doesn't agree with your view point.
In the past I've been guilty of the same...I'm trying to avoid that but it gets harder everytime its directed my way.
-
The past? As in 40 minutes ago?
"Groinhurtz, when you finally shed your balkan ignorance I'll take into consideration your opinion of me, until then when I want one from you I'll pull the ring on your back."
Idiot go away......
-
Buy a dictionary Groinhurtz, ignorance isn't the same as calling someone an idiot.
idiot... leftist..liberal...idiot... leftist...liberal...
-
What I want to know then is did those airliners really hit the WTC or not?
-
Well Toad in 50 years people like weazel will begin to doubt it, he allready thinks it was done by Israel or the CIA, possiblty some combination of the two and with the full support of Chevron Enron or Texaco of course...... :rolleyes:
Weazel go away you idiot!
-
What I want to know about is the Alien thing fatty's talking about. Are they going to open this Area 51 so we can see them or ride the spaceship? Tha'd be cool.
-
After everbody found out about Area 51 they moved all that stuff.
I can't tell you where it is now though; they'd come for me. It's really cool stuff.
Arrghhh! The BLACK HELICOPTERS! RUN!!!!!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Well Toad in 50 years people like weazel will begin to doubt it, he allready thinks it was done by Israel or the CIA, possiblty some combination of the two and with the full support of Chevron Enron or Texaco of course...... :rolleyes:
Weazel go away you idiot!
Gee, where are all the republican hand wringers shouting attack the issue, not the messenger? :rolleyes:
You've already lost the debate Groinhurtz. :D
What's next..sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting repeatedly,I can't hear you...I can't hear you?
...babble...idiot... leftist..liberal...babble...i diot... leftist..liberal...releases ring>
Sure they hit it Toad, didn't I mention above the former head of the FBI died in the WTC?
Toad, do you think we're getting the whole story?
I'm not talking about information pertinent to national security.
-
Well Creamo, the reason they are hiding it is because it contains technology that enables engines to run for weeks on a glass of urine. Unfortunately the govt is in the pocket of big oil companies which stand to lose trillions, so they'll never let the technology out.
-
Oh yeah, and they are actually behind the Afganistan theories, because it draws attention away from their secret alien gizmos.
-
Weazel, am I supposed to be suprised that the government of the US is interested in ensuring an adequate supply of oil to the US economy?
Am I supposed to be suprised that the US government would consult and work with large US oil companies to accomplish this?
Am I supposed to be surprised that the US government would work with just about any other government that wasn't openly hostile to achieve these type of goals?
Am I supposed to believe that this same type of thing has NOT gone on in every US government administration since 1776?
You want me to believe that only a Bush administration would do something like this?
Before you answer, you might want to do a google search on what some previous administrations supported in Afghanistan. :)
Hint: The Taliban captured the Afghan capital of Kabul in 1996 and, by 1998, had virtually eliminated the opposing northern alliance. And just when did Unocal FIRST take an interest in the Taliban?
-
Gee, where are all the republican hand wringers shouting attack the issue, not the messenger?
C'mon. Do you really need me to point out that Grun is over the top here? :)
-
Weazel,
Far be it from me to defend Bush, but this story is the worst kind of propaganda babble. There is no evidence at all in there, only circumstantial associations. O'neill wasn't "Head of the FBI", he was supposedly a deputy director. And I have tried to find any info on him on the web, and the story you cite is the only one?
Then they say this:
Brisard and Dasquie also reveal that the Taliban were not really ultra-orthodox in their diplomatic approach, because they actually hired an American public relations' expert for an image-making campaign in the US. It is, of course, not known whether the Pakistanis helped the Taliban secure the services of a professional image-maker. What is, however, revealed in the book is that Laila Helms, a public relations professional, who also doubles up as an authority on the way the US intelligence agencies work, was employed by the Taliban. Her task was to get the US recognise the Taliban regime. Prior to September 11, only three countries - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE - recognised the Taliban regime. Helms' familiarity with the ways of US intelligence organisations comes through her association with Richard Helms, who is her uncle a former director of the CIA and former US ambassador to Tehran.
Using Laila Helms as some kind of tie in to the Government in laughable. Look up Laila. She is a Tali-cheerleader, and has been for some time. She even stated that her Uncle thinks she is nuts. Saying she is familiar with the intelligence service due to her association with Richard Helms is at best a fabrication. Why stoop to this kind of drivel?
-
Im not trying to debate you. We all know youre nutz and that it's pointless.
-
You write "Prior to September 11, the US government had an extremely benevolent understanding of the Taliban regime. The Taliban was perceived "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean"...Not from what I've read, note the following article was written months prior:
The article below was taken from this link-> India joins anti-Taliban coalition - Jane's International Security News
India joins anti-Taliban coalition
15 March 2001
By Rahul Bedi
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.
Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries' collaborative effort.
The 13 February fall of Bamiyan, after several days of heavy fighting, threatened to cut off the only land route from Kabul to Taliban troops in northern Afghanistan. However, media reports indicate that Taliban forces recaptured the town on 17 February.
India is believed to have supplied the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, with high-altitude warfare equipment. Indian defence advisors, including air force helicopter technicians, are reportedly providing tactical advice in operations against the Taliban.
Twenty-five Indian army doctors and male nurses are also believed to be treating Northern Alliance troops at a 20-bed hospital at Farkhor, close to the Afghan-Tajik border. The Statesman newspaper quoting Indian officials said the medical contingent is being financed from Delhi.
Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban.
Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia's security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. "All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism," he said.
Military sources indicated that Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are being used as bases to launch anti-Taliban operations by India and Russia. They also hinted at the presence of a small Russian force actively assisting Massoud in the Panjsher Valley. "The situation in Afghanistan cannot be ignored as it impinges directly on the 12-year old Kashmir insurgency," an Indian military official said, adding that the Northern Alliance's elimination by the Taliban would be "disastrous" for India.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if this thing turned out to be the next watergate.. I hear one of the leaders of Enron already put a bullet to his brain. Or had it put..
Bush has been in the leash of the oil industry since day one. Pulling out of the Kioto agreement showed that clearly to the whole world. It's no secret that the money is the only single power running america, as we have seen already in the several discussions on this board.
-
What are you talking about?
Bush has been in the leash of the oil industry since day one.
Yeah, he really went to the wall for Enron didn't he.
And do you mean the Kyoto treaty that about 3 countries had ratified, and just a couple of years ago zero United States senators voted for when it came up for ratification here? Yeah, he really went against the will of the people when he said he wasn't sending it back to the Senate, seeing as it was so close the first time.
If you mean we are a mean old free market system, then yeah. I wouldn't advise visiting, we eat babies too.
-
Originally posted by GROINHURTZ
Im not trying to debate you. We all know youre nutz and that it's pointless.
...mumble...babble...idiot... leftist..liberal...mumble...b abble...idiot... leftist..liberal...
PS:
One of the rights we enjoy as Americans is freedom of speech.... of course you were brought up listening to people like ol' Slobodan Milosevic and probably think I should be made to shut up. :rolleyes:
And I'm not NUTTZ, his textures are much better than mine.
I didn't write it midnight target, I copied it from a page.
-
Another political diddlyup. what a suprise eh?
I dont think its time to start pointing accusing fingers at Bush for trying to establish peaceful relations with a government of a region and secure the oil in that region.What the diddly do you think our western society runs on? fairy piss?
You can bet your bellybutton the french were/are trying to do exactly the same only they havent got the same clout as the US
ANY president would probably try to do exactly what the bush administration tried to do in afghanistan if this is true.All those who claim their elected official would say no to oil companies on some moral issue over the taliban before sept 11 is living in a dream world.
-
Gosh, Weazel.. didn't your web search turn up anything? Mine did.
That's the problem with these sweeping generalizations that apportion blame without much support...
It Was CLINTON After Afghan Oil!!! (http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,566892,00.html)
Reference: Ahmed Rashid has covered the war in Afghanistan for more than 20 years. He is the author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale University Press). He is the Central Asia correspondent for the Daily Telegraph and the Far Eastern Economic Review.
"Good intentions soon developed into an extremist position. Most notoriously, the Taliban themselves degraded the role of women in Afghan society. It was this, in particular, which turned the tide of US state department policy against the Taliban from November 1997. Up untill then, says Rashid, Washington had been courting both Omar's group and those of other warlords, in the hope of securing a trans-Asian oil pipeline that could avoid Iran. He suggests that Clinton's gladhanding of Omar may have gone further. "The US Congress had authorised a covert $20m budget for the CIA to destabilise Iran, and Tehran had accused Washington of funnelling some of these funds to the Taliban - a charge Washington has always denied."
See.. it was CLINTON! "in the hope of securing a trans-Asian oil pipeline that could avoid Iran"
Don't like that one?
UNOCAL’s once-grand plan for Afghan pipelines (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/02/new-crogan.shtml)
"...UNOCAL, which has been publicly criticized for alleged human-rights abuses involving its Burma pipeline operation, signed an agreement in 1995 with Turkmenistan’s president for life, Saparmurat Niyazov, to build the 890-mile, $2 billion pipeline. Its goal was to transport 1.9 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from the country’s giant Dauletabad Field into Pakistan’s energy grid. The project has been on hold for several years.
Barry Lane, a UNOCAL spokesman, says there were only two viable routes for this pipeline: Iran or Afghanistan. “And the U.S. sanctions against doing business with Iran left us only one option,” he says. Hoping to hedge its bets against Iran or future OPEC cutbacks, the Clinton administration offered backing for the projects...."
Oh MY GOSH! The Clinton Adminstration in BED with UNOCAL???
Say it ain't so, Shoeless Bill!
.... Anyway, Weazel... I take all these about the same way I took the opening post.
There's plenty of dirt out there to smear around, isn't there?
-
But WTF can we do about the past?
Clinton isn't president right now is he?
One of these days you shrub supporters will get that fact straight in your minds, quit living in the past and focus your considerable brain power on the current bandit in the White House.
But thanks for being rational and thoughtful in your replies, I've learned a lot from your posts..past and present, they sure beat the guys with the pull cord on their backs. :D
-
Yeah, Bush is President now....
But let me ask you this.... did the world end because the Clinton administration was working with UnoCal and the Taliban to get that pipeline across Afghanistan?
No. And it won't end now, either.
After all, most of the "bad things" that are supposed to outrage me in your first post are present in the Clinton/UnoCal/Taliban situation as well. Government in league with big business, Government in league with evil Taliban, Big Business in league with evil Taliban... pretty much the same situation, no? And obviously, it WAS all about oil.
Yet we survived. The US is still here today and making slow steady progress towards the future.
I see nothing that is "worse" about Bush/oil/Taliban than I do about Clinton/oil/Taliban. Obviously the US needs secure supplies of oil (let's not digress into conservation, alternative energy, etc at this point). Quite obviously the US Government HAS to be involved in helping to secure that oil. It's been that way at least since the end of WW2. Every Administration puts a priority on oil; we have to face the fact that our society and economy depend upon it right now.
As for a war over oil... I totally disagree.
Had the airliner hijack/attacks not happened, the "War on Terror" would NEVER have begun. I feel pretty certain most folks understand this intrinsically.
"Bandit in the White House"? That's just a slur. Post something that actually shows he's a "Bandit".
In this example that you have posted, he's no more a "bandit" for Bush/UnoCal/Taliban than You Know Who would be for Clinton/UnoCal/Taliban. In both cases the government was trying to help secure an oil supply for the US society & economy. That makes one a bandit?
I don't recall you attacking Clinton for Clinton/UnoCal/Taliban back in '96-97.... you're not using a double standard now are you? :D
-
Weazel, I believe I have tried to converse with you intelligently, despite being a "shrub" supporter. I do note the irony of your calling for adult discourse while continuing with the immature appellation.
-
Had the airliner hijack/attacks not happened, the "War on Terror" would NEVER have begun.
To bad you to be hurted on your own soil to react ... (*)
Terrorism wasn't something new ... It din't appear the 11 of september 2001
Fact is that US troop payed the hard price previouly but the "US public" wasn't paying attention perhaps because it was only soldier ?
Or was Joe more interrested in the play off (or any local news) than what happen outside US boundaries ?
(*) you want it or no USA cannot live out of the real world.
Your country is to big and as to many interrest to live ignoring what happen elsewere ...
-
About oil.....
It's not just for gas and oil anymore (really never was). Do you guys realise how much stuff that we use was invented because of oil? Do you guys know how many products are made out of oil or oil byproducts? It's absolutely amazing how many diferent products are made out of crude oil. Even if they found an alternate fuel source we will still be dependant on oil...
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Weazel, I believe I have tried to converse with you intelligently, despite being a "shrub" supporter. I do note the irony of your calling for adult discourse while continuing with the immature appellation.
That's why he's on my ignore list. Don't need to read his post to know what he's saying.
Argue any thing but the facts!!!!!! :rolleyes:
If that don't work change the subject!!!! :rolleyes:
Finaly if none of the above works, attack the person!!!! :rolleyes:
See enough of that from DC and all the pundants....:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by straffo
To bad you to be hurted on your own soil to react ... (*)
Terrorism wasn't something new ... It din't appear the 11 of september 2001
Well, I will agree with you that it took 9/11 WTC to make the US take off the gloves and use its military might in an essentially unrestricted fashion. After 9/11, we went after what we perceived as the immediate threat with a radically altered Rules of Engagement. I agree.
I will disagree with your insinuation that we were doing NOTHING prior to 9/11. There are examples of taking action against terrorists prior to that date. The actions were just ineffective, poorly thought out or half-hearted.
However, let me ask you this....
IF the US had gone into Afghanistan after the USS Cole or after the US Embassy bombings (or even after the FIRST WTC bombing, because Al-Quaeda had its fingerprints all over that one and we knew it) in EXACTLY the way we just went after Taliban Afghanistan...
what would "world opinion" have been? I think, if you are honest, you'll admit the US would have been scourged in the UN and the world press as "overreacting".
9/11 removed that from the picture.
Now further, I ask you this...
If you watched or have since read about last night's State of the Union, I think you'll agree that Bush made it REALLY CLEAR that we are not "done" yet.
He essentially directly told a few nations that they have a very short time to "clean up their act" or we'll be coming for them.
The realist in me says that these nations will thumb their noses at his warning and that US forces will again be in "hot" combat in the not too distant future.
The cynic in me says the next attack will come when the military says "we have rebuilt our stocks of smart weapons and are ready to attack" ... but the truth of it will be that the next round will be timed to coincide with the Fall 2002 House/Senate elections. In other words, it will be politically timed. (...and don't make this out to be a solely Republican strategy. The Democrats would and have done the same type of thing. Politics is never totally out of any decision.)
Anyway... we all know IRAQ is indeed deep into weapons of mass destruction and that they do have links to and have sponsored terrorism.
So, Straffo... when we go after IRAQ, all-out, gloves off.. what will you say then?
:D
-
Kieren, "shrub" is an expression of my contempt for the scum in the white house and not meant as an attack on you or anyone else.
Udie I'm glad to be on your "mommy that man doesn't agree with me list". Your just another PC like groinhurtz.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Udie I'm glad to be on your "mommy that man doesn't agree with me list". Your just another PC like groinhurtz.
Weazle you stupid fool, you don't know what we agree or don't agree on. You're too interested in personal attacks with people who don't agree with you[ to get far enough in a debate or conversation about what we agree on or not. Go back over you're post of the last month or two and you just might come to the same conclusion I have, You and Grun are 2 sides of the same coin.
I'll make a deal with ya, start debating instead of slurring and I'll take you off the ignore list (which is really stupid anyway because I still see your posts and open them like I pick at a scab that trying to heal) It's real simple, I think you're to pissed at me to do this though. Please prove me wrong?
-
Originally posted by weazel
Kieren, "shrub" is an expression of my contempt for the scum in the white house and not meant as an attack on you or anyone else.
Yes, and it's comments like these that undermine your arguments before they begin.
I think you'll find people more receptive to discussing topics with you if you refrain from pointless ad hominem attacks.
Just my .02.
-
I don't see you jumping on the *conservatives* who use expressions like *Clintonistas* or other derogatory words to describe dems.
Sounds like a double standard to me toad.
Weazle you stupid fool, you don't know what we agree or don't agree on. You're too interested in personal attacks with people who don't agree with you[ to get far enough in a debate or conversation about what we agree on or not. Go back over you're post of the last month or two and you just might come to the same conclusion I have, You and Grun are 2 sides of the same coin.
Hmmmm, the pot calls the kettle black.
-
Show me an example of where I use those terms Weazel.
That's my point. ANYONE that uses baseless pejoratives to make their argument... instead of just discussing the issues calmly... negatively biases their case.
Lead by example.
If you become indistinguishable from your enemy... are you your own enemy? ;)
-
I won't take position about Iraq ;)
Anyway my position is known I think :) I support the Iraqui not their dictature ...
The work was not terminated in 1990 why ? perhaps because of the Iran ?
What I discuss is the fact that none of your previous president took a clear and public position concerning terrorism.
And I'm not sure that in the absence of the WTC tragedie such think would have happened ...
btw I will post tomorrow as here it's 21:30 and I waked up at 4:30 ... the only think I was is going to bed ;) not having an internet debate :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
I won't take position about Iraq ;)
Anyway my position is known I think :) I support the Iraqui not their dictature ...
What? You won't take a clear and public position against terrorism? I'm shocked, I say, SHOCKED!
What I discuss is the fact that none of your previous president took a clear and public position concerning terrorism.
Well, apparently none that YOU noticed. Several President's have stated their policies against terrorists and some have resulted in military action, admittedly with varying success.
But to say US President's have not publicly opposed terrorism... :rolleyes:
And I'm not sure that in the absence of the WTC tragedie such think would have happened ...
The WTC simply allowed us to act in an essentially unrestricted manner against Bin Laden and his supporters.. including the Taliban. It allowed us to "go to war" instead of trying to handle it yet again through diplomatic channels (a method that has had little if any success.)
-
My little girl won't sleep ... So I'm back ...but as tired as before ...well no I'm more tired ...
It's obvious I didn't make my point clear :
I'm against any form of terrorism.
Period.
The fact that for some time we (westerner) supported Saddam and now let the average Iraqui support our anger disgust me as we didn't terminate the job in the 90's ...
you didn't answered ? was it because of Iran ? ....
I'm not sure that the Iraqui are more or less evil than our current "friends" the saoudi who are the lowest form of Bastard I know with those poor Koweiti ...
May they burn in hell...
Concerning your previous president ... they don't speak loud enought to cross the Atlantic ... especially when all other country expect something (as I said before USA as a big role to play worldwide even if some US citizen believe le contraire)
And I strongly beleive that saying that only Corea Irak and Iran are supporting terrorism is an ENORMOUS mistake ...
Well you need the support of the Pakistani (*) so they can't support terrorism it would be in contradiction we your principles no ?
I'm sure the Indian are pleased to hear that ... but who care of the sentiment of a (I spit ... berk it's disguting ...) "socialistic country" ?
And the founding of Isreal was cought... cought... sorry not terrorism ?
(*) ouch ... I put you nose in your own toejam ? I feel so ... sorry :D
Don't make me a speech about real-politik ...
I know what dirty thinks need to be done for a country ....
I'm pretty sure to be mis-understood ...
but as I'm too tired to re-write or re-read my post I will commen't later ...
tomorrow in fact ...
-
Originally posted by straffo
The fact that for some time we (westerner) supported Saddam and now let the average Iraqui support our anger disgust me as we didn't terminate the job in the 90's ...
Well, situations change, don't they? We were allies with the Soviet Union...next thing you know Cold War enemies. Were we wrong to support the Soviets as allies in WW2?
I don't think so but... things change.
I wish we had finished it. I think the "100 hour war" was a stupid mistake. We needed another week or so.
you didn't answered ? was it because of Iran ? ....
No, I don't think it was Iran.
IMO it was two things... The coalition hadn't planned on being so successful (total rout of Iraqi forces) so fast and had no idea how they would run Iraq or propose as its leader if they deposed him. Also, the "highway of death" BS (and it was BS.. those were mostly kills of empty vehicles after the initial missions) playing on CNN brought out a strong sentiment amonst timid politicians that it was time to stop.
Just my opinion, though.
I'm not sure that the Iraqui are more or less evil than our current "friends" the saoudi who are the lowest form of Bastard I know with those poor Koweiti ...
May they burn in hell...
I am. The Saudis, bast*rds or not, aren't openly training folks to take over airliners nor are they building weapons of mass destruction of the nuke/chemical/biological type. Iraq IS.
Concerning your previous president ... they don't speak loud enought to cross the Atlantic ... especially when all other country expect something (as I said before USA as a big role to play worldwide even if some US citizen believe le contraire)
Or it may be no one listens closely when "those stupid Americans" are talking. I admit our politicians send confusing signals sometimes... but sometimes they don't.
As for USA's leadership... agreed. But to lead you have to have followers. The US has been working on BOTH Israel and the Palestinians to stop the terror. Maybe I'm not hearing, but where have the Euro's been on this issue? Why do I see few if any Euro statesmen in Israel or Palestine offering to help?
And I strongly beleive that saying that only Corea Irak and Iran are supporting terrorism is an ENORMOUS mistake ...
I don't think he said "only". He said we'll be working on these FIRST. Be patient. :)
Well you need the support of the Pakistani (*) so they can't support terrorism it would be in contradiction we your principles no ?
Have you noticed Powell and Bush working on Pakistani leadership to get them to STOP their anti-Indian rhetoric and to crack down on Pakistani terrorists? Do you think they didn't talk about that when Musharraf came to DC?
I'm sure the Indian are pleased to hear that ... but who care of the sentiment of a (I spit ... berk it's disguting ...) "socialistic country" ?
Did you notice Powell going to India also to help defuse the situation?
Bottom line..despite the artillery barrages and shooting, did India and Pakistan go to war over Kashmir... yet? No. And who was doing the intermediary diplomacy? You guessed it, didn't you?
What other Euro's, other than England's Blair have tried to help defuse India/Pakistan? It's going to take ALL of us... you can't realistically expect us to do it all.
And the founding of Isreal was cought... cought... sorry not terrorism ?
Sure, the Jews used terror as a weapon to achieve statehood. Begin was a terrorist, just like Arafat.
But the UN, not the US granted "statehood" to Israel. Right now, the US has said that "statehood" is probably warranted for Palestine... but the Palestinians have used terror to get to this situation... so.. should we deny the Palestinians?
Sorry its not a perfect world, Straffo. Even the US alone can't make it perfect. We do what we can... what are the rest of you doing?
(*) ouch ... I put you nose in your own toejam ? I feel so ... sorry :D
Don't make me a speech about real-politik ...
I know what dirty thinks need to be done for a country ....[
Not my nose, not my sh*t.
I think there's plenty of sh*t left all around the world by colonial powers that just about everyone has either stuck their nose in or stepped in.
Do you want to talk about French dealings with Iraq prior to and after the Gulf war? Plenty of sh*t my friend. Or perhaps VietNam right after WW2?
Point is we can talk about it or forget the blame and just all help clean it up.
-
// I'm still trying to have a rest but the little is still sick :(
she is making her teeth ...
in short : I agree.
What is truly strange is that I agree point by point ...
I'm either to tired to think a bit or I do really agree ;)
About toejam I know that our toejam stink as strong as the other's ...
Concerning colonial behaviour (or mis-behaviour)
The Last fact made me jump to the ceilling (dunno if it's an correct english expression but her we use it :)) :
A french Veteran got (depending on condition ...) something like 3000 euro per month ... an strictly EQUIVALENT African Veteran got less than 200 Euro !
Why ? frankly I boiled ....
Concening cleaning up the mess ...
Well I'm not optimistic enought to believe It wil happen ...
-
I have heard it suggested that we didn't finish the job in Iraq because we actually want Saddam Hussien in power. That he is one of the only influencial leaders in the area that is not considered an Islamic Fundamentalist, and thus provides a balance in the region in his own sick way.
Maybe with the softening of relations with Iran, this will change and we will be able to safely take the bastard out without creating a holy war for Bagdad.